eBay LOSERS

Now, before anyone jumps, I'm talking about people "abusing" not just anyone who posts auctions (empeg in this case) on eBay.

I see a lot of people simply copying (stealing) other people's custom HTML, images and even linking to images on other people's servers (including pulling stuff direct from the SONICblue store site!) That's theft of bandwidth. It's against eBay rules and it's grounds to getting your auction removed.

If you're trying to sell something on eBay, don't steal other people's work and don't link to images that you are not hosting yourself.

If you are following the rules and you see someone else that isn't, just email eBay support about it. It's an easy way to thin out the seller competition. You can also email the rightful owners of the images (webmasters etc) and they may very well change the links.

When I see people stealing from auctions I've listed I fire off an email to the offender asking him to take down his auction right away. The next email goes to eBay. And if I'm in a good mood I may just change over the images they're linking to something else entirely.

If you're one of these thieves and now getting all bent out of shape because you think I'll narc you out... Well, if I feel like it, I will. Get with the program and there's no worries. Good thing I'm not trying to auction an empeg myself right now. Otherwise I'd zip through everyone else's auctions to see how many eBay customer service would care to nuke. It's a rough world on the auction frontier.

Bruno

When I see people stealing from auctions I've listed I fire off an email to the offender asking him to take down his auction right away. The next email goes to eBay.

If it's strictly against Ebay's terms of service, I don't see why the first of those two emails even has to happen. I say e-mail Ebay first. Don't even warn the seller. Just get them terminated.

funny how you are bitching about people "stealing" other people's work and bandwidth with regards to a product that is primarily and universally used to play back illegally owned music..

Yeah, yeah, some people will use their own music collection and not use any pirated music. Well I would bet all I own that the vast majority of Empeg and other hi-capacity MP3 player owners have bootleg music in their collections.. So let he without sin(stealing) cast the first stone...

Stealing bandwidth is kind of sleazy, but the owners of that material can do something to prevent it from being leeched in the first place.

with regards to a product that is primarily and universally used to play back illegally owned music.

That statement is ill-informed. Before anyone flames the guy, how about this...



Note to everyone choosing to answer: This poll is anonymous.

Mr. Munsey, why do I get the feeling you are not long on this board? I suspect you may well regret saying that, as it is ill-informed and below the belt.

And as a follow-up poll:

Tony, the Empeg has renewed my interest in quality ripped music. I hardly download music anymore because most people don't care about how their rip sounds. Instead, because I'm still cheap, I buy cuts and promos from half.com for about $3 per album.

Tony, the Empeg has renewed my interest in quality ripped music. I hardly download music anymore because most people don't care about how their rip sounds. Instead, because I'm still cheap, I buy cuts and promos from half.com for about $3 per album.

Despite the "still cheap" part, that still counts as buying more CDs, so the poll options are still valid for you.

Good point about the quality. I have only ever been interested in high-quality MP3s, and I, too, have noticed that most of the stuff on the web is crap.

Bandwidth theft is a little different than pirating music. It's an ongoing burden that the host of that material is actually paying for each time it is used.

But, as other have pointed out, you're dead wrong about the source of music on the majority of players. Your point may become true at a later date with all the recent sales, but the vast majority of posters on this BBS fill their players with their own music.

I used to do a bit of reading and posting on the Audiograbber BBS as well and the majority of people purchasing the program were interested in ripping their own music for their own private (fair) use.

I just saw one auction where the guy is advertising the fact that he os pre-loading all his empegs with 10000 songs! And he goes to to say stuff like "that's a $500 value!" - needless to say, I fired off a message to eBay about that one guy right away. That is clearly illegal and *so* against eBay policies.

Besides, it gives a leg up to others trying to sell their empegs.

And, why should one have to script their page to prevent bandwidth theft? That's a burden I will definitely undertake for some web projects, but not something I feel like I should have to do all the time. I don't mind the casual link to some of my stuff in a message board for instance, especially if it's of an honest nature. But someone linking any of my material on eBay to generate profit for themselves, or on their own site, to portray it as their work is where I draw the line.

Bruno

that still counts as buying more CDs, so the poll options are still valid for you

I know, I answered the first poll, but i was unsure how I should answer the 2nd one. It's not the Empeg that prompted me to buy more CDs, but crappy rips from others.

I agree with the crappy rips deal also do you deem it ok to use others images as long as you upload them to your own server?

Only if they're corporate images (taken by the original manufacturer). I wouldn't take someone else's image, and I always host images off my own servers.

Depends if it's fair-use, depends on the image in question and depends on the wishes/policies of the image copyright holder/owner.

It can be a grey area. Original artwork I always say absolutely no. Fairly generic product shots I usually say yes - especially when they are available from the manufacturer for promotional and press usage. But if I take my own photograph of my own Rio, I consider that original art. So see above.

Start by always hosting your own images. Next, when possible take your own photographs for things like auctions. Or use press-type prints that are intended for such purposes. Get permission whenever applicable. If you're looking for images for your own site and not auctions, then make sure anything you're going to use is allowed to be used - don't just lift stuff from someone else.

On my Mobile Matrix page I have used a combination of everything I suppose. First, I am using images to advertise/review each product and not for any commercial (or other) gain for myself. I obtained generic press-type product shots for each player shown. I also did some of my own photography. I worked all the images to fit with what I wanted to show. That included compositing my own photography with the press photos. I provide copyright and trademark information for the products at the bottom of the page. Within the page I link several times to the trademark owners of the products.

I also provide a note at the bottom stating that others are not permitted to use the images I have on my site. That always includes bandwidth theft, but even just lifting the images. If other people want similar images, they can go to the source like I did and then do their own work. Or they can contact me for permission. And since I'm a reasonable guy, they'd probably get it. And of course the same type of conditions apply to the text within my tables. I spent enough time on that, for no other reason than to just share information, but I don't want my work uncredited and/or lifted/reused.

And if you're reading here, you're already getting all sorts of free consulting. Just email me for permission before ever republishing elsewhere, anything I write here. hehe.

Bruno

Yeah whenever I list something on eBay if I cannot make my own picture, I will use an official company picture I never steal someone elses homemade image.

I have emailed ebay about auctions selling pirated software their reply was pretty much they won't do anything about it until after you buy the item

I suppose the loser could have 10k copies of some free mp3 on it :-)

jnmunsey: a product that is primarily and universally used to play back illegally owned music

Well, for what it is worth, I just answered that poll. Granted, as with other BBS polls, unless the total N or respondants comes close to the N of BBS accounts, it's validity could be called into question. I also admit that, with the recent addition of a large number of new (perhaps more cost-sensitive) Empeg owners, it is possible that the behavioral profile vis-a-vis piracy is different today than it was 3 months ago.

That being said, I think you are unfairly applying your opinions and suspicions to a group of folks, myself included, who will vigorously beg to differ. Of ~350 CDs worth of music on my Empeg, >95% is from my CD collection, this for all the reasons cited in this thread . What can you say in that regard? Are you perhaps just projecting your opinions/behaviors onto us?

Hmm.. I think my amazon account is proof enough that I've purchased alot more cd's since owning an empeg then before.. (before, I had the same 4-5 cd's that I rotated.. Now I'm averaging 5-10 new cd's/month)
-mark

they won't do anything about it until after you buy the item

Or unless your hand is up their ass. I've had 3 auctions prematurely ended eBay. The first was for an NFR copy of BackOffice (the first version with NT 3.51). The last two were for promo DVDs where the blemish to the UPC was evident in my picture of the item.

The NFR is understandable even though I was selling it 10 years after it was commercially available. The DVDs are outrageous. If you can buy a cut CD or DVD at Tower Records, I should be able to sell them on eBay.

> Granted, as with other BBS polls, unless the total N or respondants comes close to the N of BBS accounts, it's validity could be called into question.

Not to mention the fact that it is a self-selected poll, and some groups may have more of an desire to answer than others, despite the anonymous nature. No one wants Empeg to be associated with piracy, even the pirates with Empegs.

Boy, this BBS sure eats a lot of my posts. The first copy of this post was about the third or fourth of my posts it has eaten.

Boy, this BBS sure eats a lot of my posts. The first copy of this post was about the third or fourth of my posts it has eaten.

I have posted to this BBS more frequently than any other user, and the BBS has never eaten any of my posts. Well except on the occasions when it's crashed, and it hasn't crashed today.

So I would guess it's something in what you're doing, or something wrong with your browser or your internet connection. Are you simply hitting the "back" button on the "preview post" screen, perhaps? Remember the BBS (by default) lets you preview and edit a post before confirming it.

you're right I have heard of other people having auctions ended for legitimate items but then they won't end illegitimate ones when they are pointed out.

ebay doesn't make sense sometimes.

I signed up for emusic so I have gotten many from them instead of the store so I have probably not purchased more actual CD's

No, I got all the way to the point where it says my post has been entered.

Mybe it doesn't like me. Wouldn't be the first time.

Hmm. What browser are you using?

Internet Explorer 6 on a Win 2K machine. Pretty standard stuff. I don't have any unusual security settings or anything.

Personally I think the law's bunk. When you buy something, you own it. Do what you want with it. Fair play.

Well.. if you buy into a condo, you can't take it and move it can you? Buying software has been cleverly hidden behind the EULA which prohibits you from selling it later. If you never use it, you can get around it and sell it again (under first sale laws).

Edit: Hrm.. I dunno why I was talking about software, it's umm.. late yea..

I agree. Do with CDs that you BUY what you want. That doesn't include copying/encoding the music into MP3 format and then selling copies. Then you're not doing anything with what you bought. You're producing illegitimate copies for sale. And that's the issue with the listing on eBay I mentioned.

If the seller wants to sell the music, then he should (MUST) ship all the CDs with the empeg he's selling. Then there's nothing wrong with it. However, he wasn't going to do that and actually had TWO empegs for sale with the same music as a bonus.

Bruno

BTW, you also shouldn't link images from other sites (including uglypeople.com) for use on the BBS. You're stealing their bandwidth (if not their copyright). Their site is being impacted (even though the downloads are small) each and every time someone opens a thread on this BBS.

Bruno

While linking to other peoples' images may be rude, it is legal. A couple of years ago ticketmaster took tickets.com to court over "deep linking" which is essentially the embedded of whole pages, not just images, from one website within the frames of pages on another website. Ticketmaster lost the case and thus there is now legal precedent, at least in the USA, to support linking stuff into your pages from other people's webservers.

And really, the technical solution is easy and doesn't require a whole lot of scripting. There are a lot of tools that make it simple to filter requests for images (or any other file type) by referrer. Even simpler is to keep an eye on your log files and if you see your images being abused, just rename them and your own links and then put some nasty-ass goatse.cx pictures in their place with the original filenames.

Trust me, nobody is going to sell an empeg with the goatse.cx guy as the image of their product. It would probably be enough to get the seller banned all on his own.

I am not ashamed of downloading mp3s off the net. In fact, I am quite proud of my new mechanism for discovering new artists RISK FREE. If I like their work, I'll pay for it. For two reasons:

The punks out there ripping the stuff and putting it on the net often don't know what they are doing and/or are sloppy with the tags. When I buy the disc, I'll do a proper job of archiving it.

Also, I do like to think I am supporting the artists, despite a very small fraction of my money going to support them, and a large part of my money going towards preventing what I am doing in the first place.

My conscience is clear. I used to record from FM all the time and make mixed tapes which lead to me buying the work of the artists. mp3s are no different, just less lossy and no irritating commercials or cross-fades to edit out.

If it is illegal, who's gonna stop me?

And now I remember one very cool feature of most any NNTP client...

What kind of car are you going to ask your parents to buy you when you're old enough to get a licence?

Bruno

I'm curious, where are these laws? I'm sure they exist, but where would I find them? I'm up to the J's now ripping my collection to my RioCar, and I see on Jesus Jones "Warning: Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws". What laws?

> I'm curious, where are these laws?

A copyright is given to any author of an artistic production, as governed by the Copyright Act of 1976 as amended (17 U.S.C. Sections 101 et seq.). The copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years. Those who infinge copyrights may be liable for damage or criminal penalties.

Hope that answers your question.

Edit: Sorry, it's 70 years after the death of the author, not 50.

RIAA, who wants exemption from anti-terrorist laws so it could hack into people's computers to see whether they contain MP3s, and then do whatever thay want, including destroying them, with impunity?

We were discussing a lot here both legality and morality of various aspects of MP3 use. 'Who is gonna catch me' is not part of either. Does that criterion apply to other aspects of your everyday behaviour, too?

I think that many people (myself included) occasionally use illegal downloads for such 'try before buy' purpose. If I hear a new album I like or radio, I'll buy it. If I hear them talking about a hot new performer I know nothing about, I will try to download a tune or two (and either dump them or buy the album). I am not ashamed of such use of technically illegal downloads either, because I believe they lead to buying more CDs (but with fewer 'misses').

Hmmm 90% in the poll admit to having some tracks that are NOT from their personal collections.. Sounds like the vast majority to me..

Some of you also replied indicating you had *some* tracks not from your collection(100%-95%=5%). Well, whether you knowingly have 2000 or only 2 or 3 pirated songs in your collection in either case it is still against the law. Is one worse than the other? Probably, as I would think it isn't as bad if someone has spent *some* money on music.

My point was it seems *most* people have done it, even if just a tiny bit, and I thought the original post was a bit ironic

-John M

Things are complicated by the fact that most of the music is copyrighted not by authors, but their publishers (most of them grouped in a handfull of global media conglomerates). "50 years after composer's death" rule still applies, but then Sony Classical or whoever will 'protect' the particular performance of a LvB's symphony, when the work itself is in public domain.

It should be noted (as has been here a number of times) that currently 'fair use' doctrine seems to be stronger in Europa than USA, but I am affraid that is eroding, too.

Perhaps someone with more knowlege on this than me could write a FAQ entry? 'Fair use' doctrine and RIAA'a attempts to squash it would be most interesting topic.

You're missing an option in your follow up poll.

No, i am now buying less CDs.

You're missing an option in your follow up poll.

Yes, i am now buying less CDs.

>...Sony Classical or whoever will 'protect' the particular performance of a LvB's symphony, when the work itself is in public domain.

Yeah, the performance of that artistic production is itself an artistic production subject to those same copyright laws. Similiar to your example, one of the things that really irks me about copyright law, being a big fan of paintings, is that a picture of a painting is itself copyrighted. I think that is going a little too far, it is hardly like a picture of a painting is an "artistic production".

Your example of "try before you buy" may (MAY) be legal under the fair use exceptions of the U.S. (just for general info, not that it matters much to you in Croatia). If it is non-commercial, is not a substantial portion of the work in question, and, most importantly, will not effect the potential market or value of the work, it just might fall under fair use.

I'm not a lawyer (though I play one on TV). If you get arrested, don't say, "well, Ninti said I could".

> Well, whether you knowingly have 2000 or only 2 or 3
> pirated songs in your collection in either case it is still
> against the law. Is one worse than the other? Probably,
> as I would think it isn't as bad if someone has spent *some*
> money on music

True. Doing 5mph over the posted speed limit is illegal, just as is doing 50mph over the limit.

Its the difference between abiding by the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

I abide by the spirit of the law, but hardly the letter.

Also, I refuse to buy an entire CD when I like only one or two tracks off it. Until the recording industry has a way that I can buy only what I want, and that I can ensure that more profit goes to the artist, I will continue this way. If I could PayPal the money directly to the artist, you can be sure the net effect for them would be better than had I bought their work through their greedy label.

Something that is worth money to me is worth money to me. If I would never have bought a whole CD from which I have one track downloaded, is that a lost sale? No. Would I care if I accidentally deleted? A bit, but not enough, because it held little or no worth to me.

Laws are guidelines that happen to be explicit so that there is some line drawn against which to make judgement and so that stupid people do not misinterpret them. How far one deviates from the guidelines determines if they are a criminal.

I'll continue to do a small percentage over the posted speed limit, and I will continue to have a similar percentage of my music not owned.

Keep in mind that even though I selected "mostly from CD and some downloaded" this still dosen't mean it's illegal. My Mark 1 introduced me to the wonders of MP3.com, and I have several downloaded and legal songs from that site. Also, I have a TMBG album that I bought online and downloaded directly.

The "downloaded a few" choice will probably be higher then the "all from my personal CD collection", but it's definitly not an indicator of how many tracks are illegal.

bonzi, who can stop me is relevant, because if they can't enforce a law then it's meaningless. That's the whole concept behind the 2nd amendment.

And no I don't think it's morally wrong.

My point was it seems *most* people have done it, even if just a tiny bit, and I thought the original post was a bit ironic

Most people on this BBS are not SELLING songs they have ripped. Please go back to my original post on the subject of the eBay auction in question. There's a difference between downloading a few tracks for preview purposes and getting into the practice of selling other people's stolen work.

Hey, I've even downloaded songs for albums I own. Where do you put that one. The rips didn't actually come from my own CD. Those have long since been replaced, but I used them long ago for testing.

I know you were trying to play devil's advocate about "casting the first stone" but that's not the point. I don't think the legal system in any country would work very well if everyone involved in it had to be completely "innocent" with the exception of the crooks. Hey, I reported that guy to eBay's abuse department. When I tell people I have an MP3 in my car I don't want them to associate that with stealing music. If I'm trying to sell something on eBay, I don't want some joker who's abusing the rules and the laws to sneak in and lessen the chance of my own sales. Yeah, that last one is selfish. But this time I actually don't have anything to sell, I just thought it was vagrant abuse.

Bruno

So, if I were to ask Paul for your IP, then contact your provider for logs, get your phone number, reverse-lookup or go to the phone company, get your address, show up at your place, then kick the crap out of you. Would that validate the law? Probably not, because you could just say I was doing it for any number of other reasons.

I don't "not steal music" because it's illegal. I buy music because I respect the authors and I value their work. I guess it's people like yourself that make security necessary (and everything associated with it). Relating back to another thread that has gone into la-la-land, I believe rather than worry about "foreigners" everyone should be in mortal fear of their countries becoming overrun with "patriots" like yourself.

Bruno

In reply to:

---

True. Doing 5mph over the posted speed limit is illegal, just as is doing 50mph over the limit.

Its the difference between abiding by the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

---

Amen!

"There's a difference between downloading a few tracks for preview purposes and getting into the practice of selling "other people's stolen work."

Most copyrights do not allow "previewing". Sure there is a difference - I already acknowledged that, but it is still illegal..

MOST people with large mp3 collection have bootleg music.. There are a few who don't, and MOST who say they don't have bootleg music are lying in my opinion..

I am not preaching here, nearly all of my MP3 collection is bootleg, mainly because it takes much longer to rip my CDs and i haven't got around to it.. I am sure one of you righteous ones will probably rat me out too...

-John M

This is a somewhat grey area, but US Copyright Law's fair use section allows for ``research''. If one is researching whether or not one wants the recording, I think that it's fair. I've certainly bought more music in this manner than I would otherwise.

You're forgetting about bootlegs/concert recordings/remixes/etc - These are items that are not available via cd's, and used to be passed around on mixed-tapes/burned cd's..

Same difference as 10 years ago; just a different media.
-mark

Face it guys - no matter what the record companies want you to think, MP3's/digital downloads actually enhance the audience's awareness about bands/increase sales.

...Now to contrast that, the record companies aren't doing well this year. Sales are down. Why? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY MUSIC WORTH PURCHASING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

I purchase good cd's when I see them; but honestly (in the popular-music scene) there's nothing good out - it's all trash.. My purchases have almost exclusivelly been techno/trance from dj's that I like and respect; but for the average consumer that's into Top-40, there's nothing but trash/repeated/already heard junk out there.

...How many songs can you think of that were playing repeatedly on the radio over a year ago, and that are still playing repeatedly?

-mark

I bought some excellent albums this past year. Ok, none of them got any airplay on any station I ever listen to...

The Charlatans' Wonderland. Best album of the year as far as I'm concerned.
New Order's Get Ready.
Pulp's We Love Life

And a few others.

Anyone else think we should get Tony to shut this thread down as well? I started it about empeg resale abuse and was already thinking about putting it in OffTopic at that time. It's gone off on a complete tangent now.

Bruno

"bonzi, who can stop me is relevant, because if they can't enforce a law then it's meaningless. That's the whole concept behind the 2nd amendment. "

When I read this I began to doubt my memory of the 2nd amendment, but when I looked at my little red constitution book there it was -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

With that in mind, I have to say I'm not seeing the connection between your first and second sentences. Care to clairfy? (no sarcasm intended, I'd really like to know).

-Adam

How many songs can you think of that were playing repeatedly on the radio over a year ago, and that are still playing repeatedly?

if you have broadband, have a shot at triplej. They seem to have a good diversity

I used to listen to local commercial channels but it just got too ... well... commercial. One station plays nothing but teeny pop and the other has a regular rotation of Cold Chisel, Pink Floyd, Midnight Oil, and a few other rock bands. ugh, gets sooo tiring.

We just had the annual vote for tha past year's 'hottest 100' in Australia. Quite a good mix of rock & dance stuff. 8 hours of counting down on Saturday. Part of the voting I hope will have downloadable snippets of mp3s to remind you of what the song is. I hate not being able to recognise the song by its title.

I've often heard a song on the radio, done a search but come up with nothing and gone and bought the CD. Or, after finding a track on the net, enjoyed it and bought the CD as well.

As for no good music available, that depends on what you're exposed to. If, as you say, the local stations only play preteen pop, you're hard pushed to find out what's out there.

Considering the content of damn near every post you've had here, you are either a very opinionated person, or trolling.

Honestly I think anyone who wants to engauge in debate should startup a new bbs. Im gettin kind of tired to having to go through useless arguments to find information and to help others. This BBS was setup for Empeg and Rio car player, it says so on the top. Please choose the off-topic to post these things, thats what its there for.

-Greg

"I purchase good cd's when I see them; but honestly (in the popular-music scene) there's nothing good out - it's all trash.. My purchases have almost exclusivelly been techno/trance from dj's that I like and respect"

Hmmm imo I can't take seriously opinions of someone who considers techno/trance "good music" There was a time in the very late 80s and ealry 90s when that genre of music did require some talent and creativity to compose, but the past 5 years I have heard nothing I couldn't easily create on my own PC with significant ease.. There isn't anything original in that genre coming out either.. Only so many combinations of "unscka" music exist I suppose..

Yeah a lot of it still sounds cool but I balk at calling any of it "good"..

Perhaps I am getting too old...

-John M

Have you checked out DJFM www.djfm.com. Pretty cool stuff from Raleigh, NC

omarkhayyam,

The right to bear arms is important because it gives more power to the people. If the government starts making stupid laws, they'll have a tough time enforcing it.

but the past 5 years I have heard nothing I couldn't easily create on my own PC with significant ease..

Either you listen to only the crappy techo/trance, or you should be making music yourself.. It doesn't take unique talent to produce music, reguardless of the genre. I could say the same thing about classical music, that nothing great has been done in the past 100 years.. Or pop music in the last 50 years.. I guess I just can't take seriously the opinions of someone who looks at a whole genre and claims there's nothing good only because %90 of what's produced now is not new.

Maybe I just have an unspoiled perspective of the genre, so when I come accross a good artist, I can see them for what they are, not how they compare to the rest of the artists out there..

Oh, right. I'm not going to start this flame war, and you shouldn't either. This no longer has anything to do with the topic at hand - Empeg/RioCar - so take this to the OffTopic board or drop it, please.

The S/N Ratio is getting high on this post - perhaps we need to find a better ground.

Hey Clown, I don't know why your directing that post at me, but in case you didn't notice, I only contributed probably no more than 5% of this discussion, if that.

Well I seriously doubt "classical" music of any realism could be produced on a PC, though this genre of music is where a good midi system really shines. With the right hardware/software it is good, but still not believeable.

"Trance/Techno" otoh is perfectly matched to the PC, and in fact quite a bit of what you hear in that genre today is being produced on PCs and mostly Macs.. If you are into making music on a PC you definitely need the application "Reason". Pretty cool app that will save you thousands on music hardware..

BTW, I am just being a smart-ass.. I respect most people's opinions...

So how do you move a thread to OT???

I never said classical music could be produced on a PC.. My point about classical music had nothing to do with being able to produce music on a PC.

Hmmm imo I can't take seriously opinions of someone who considers techno/trance "good music"

There isn't anything original in that genre coming out either

Well, next time you're near a good alternative music store, here's some stuff you might want to check out:

Shpongle - Are You Shpongled
Shpongle - Tales of the Inexpressible
Infected Mushroom - Classical Mushroom
Analog Pussy - Fight to Trance
Astral Projection - Another World
Growling Mad Scientists - The Growly Family
Logic Bomb - Headware
Space Tribe - Religious Experience

That's all psychadelic trance (some classic, some recent) - I've not been keeping up with the techno scene recently. If you can create any of that on your home PC then I suspect that you have a significant music production suite attached to it as well.

Please disregard anything that the guy on the radio refers to as Trance or Techno - that's almost always mainstream dance.

Rob

Of course it's "written on a PC or a Mac" (or even an ST!) - you have to run Cuebase on something! Of course that PC or Mac is also connected to a huge array of analog synths, wavestations, samplers and effect processors.

It's not uncommon for trance artists to also use live instruments, for example Raja Ram of Shpongle is a classical flautist.

I'd be happy to continue the debate in the Off Topic forum

Rob

Hey Rob, I remember Astral Projection from an older vinyl I've got laying around here somewhere. It was called "liquid sun". Great record, especially cass & slide's rework of it. Remember that one?
I've just D/L'ed Another world. Great tune. Will be on my wish list next week when I visit my vinyl shop.

Actualy, the total number of respondants of a poll does *not* need to approach the total number of BBS members, provided of course, the goal is to measure the BBS members. If that's the case, then based on how confident you want the result of the poll to be, (e.g. 95% confidence) and how accurate (+3 x%) you can actually mathematically work out the *exact* number of answers you need for a fairly good and reasonable answer. And typically yes, the number of poll respondants are the tiniest fraction of the membership of the sampling group. Strange but true.

Calvin

How do you feel about video rental? How do you feel about libraries with vast CD holdings?

Calvin

Calvin: Actually, the total number of respondants of a poll does *not* need to approach the total number of BBS members, provided of course, the goal is to measure the BBS members. If that's the case, then based on how confident you want the result of the poll to be, (e.g. 95% confidence) and how accurate (+3 x%) you can actually mathematically work out the *exact* number of answers you need for a fairly good and reasonable answer.

This would all be very true if the survey/poll were conducted with some semblance of a random sampling method and if the design/analysis took account of the potential biases (esp. of non-responders). For reasons that ninti elaborated on ("Not to mention the fact that it is a self-selected poll, and some groups may have more of an desire to answer than others, despite the anonymous nature. ...") this is hardly the case.

At least compared to the many self-selected Insta-Polls conducted by news organizations, this poll has a reasonably estimable N of possible respondants. Even then, the calculation of a traditional 90, 95% (or whatever) confidence interval would not be appropriate. About the best you can do on a self-selected poll like this (with a known possible respondant N) is to perform a sensitivity test -- take the n of non-responses and build 2 cases: Case 1 where all non-responses are assumed to be "Yes" and Case 2 where all non-responses are assumed to be "No". As you might guess, this gets a lot harder with an analysis of multiple-choice questions.

And typically yes, the number of poll respondants are the tiniest fraction of the membership of the sampling group. Strange but true.

Can you tell that Insta-Polls drive me nuts???

I knew you woulda perked up to that one. ;-) With a sig like that.

Yep there are plenty of preconditions. Another precondition is a normal distribution. In my case, I don't poll people. We have a prediction engine that we calibrate using a polling type system. We dial in the accuracy and confidence we want, and gun for good results.

Calvin

Even attempting to determine the percentage of error in a non-probability sample (self-selected) is futile.. Out of the 1625 registered users, only 110 voted during 1245 views and 70 posts. Unfortunately, the views are not unique so it can't even determine who read the poll and decided not to vote.

What you can then statisticly conclude is nothing more than of the 1625 users registered, atleast %6 of them have some ammount of mp3's on their empeg that they don't own the CD for. Of that %6, I would say that %30 of them are "illegal" copies, where the rest fall under fair use allowances. Ttrading between friends is legal, and downloading doesn't differentiate between free and illegal downloads.. I just downloaded 8 tracks from mp3.com, all legal.

Good point. The poll does not accurately gauge whether the downloaded tracks are legitimate or not. Therefore the poll is invalid.

Calvin

> Ttrading between friends is legal

I don't believe that to be true in most cases. The law is no different whether you downloaded it or ripped it from a friends CD, at least for the reciever.

110 reponses, huh? It's too bad it wasn't more scientific, because if it were that would easily be a good enough chunk of the users of the Empeg to give a very low probability of error.

I agree that the poll itself was not worded well enough to differentiate between legal and illegal downloads, but in the context of the conversation in the thread that brought about it, it seemed pretty clear to me that it meant illegal ones, and I voted accordingly. Perhaps my interpretation of the question was not shared by a lot of people, but your estimate that 70% of the people who said that they downloaded files are doing so completely legally seems rather high to me.

Trading between friends is legal in some countries.

Not the US.

Calvin

> Ttrading between friends is legal
I don't believe that to be true in most cases.

Trading between friends has been legal for a long time. The problem that the record industry has with all of this, is that the definition of "trading between friends" seems to change depending on who you're talking to. Some people seem to think that Napster was "trading between friends".

http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra_summary.html
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html

Yang: Even attempting to determine the percentage of error in a non-probability sample (self-selected) is futile.

No disagreement. When I mention a sensitivity test, even that would be meaningless at this rate of response. Example: For a simple one-question survey with 1500 responding out of possible 1600 and a 60% (900/1500) "Yes" vote, you could assert that the true "Yes" is somewhere between 56 and 62 percent (b/w 900/1600 and 1000/1600). That's potentially useful information. If it were a 60% "yes" within 110 (out of 1600 potential) responses, well, I don't think there's any useful infomation there (except that you have a horrible response rate!!)

I couldn't find any text regarding the allowable copying of works for friends in those two links.

Calvin

I really don't believe that to be true. The fair use exemptions to the copyright law are pretty specific, and while the courts have weighed in a little to expand them (notably in the case of VCR "time-shifting"), I don't recall ever seeing, and couldn't just now find, an exemption or court case that specifically allowed copying friend's materials. In fact, I remember Metallica got a lot of flack during the Napster battle because in the liner notes of one of their old albums they admitted to sitting around copying each-others albums.

Eternalsun, my apologies for the blanket statement. You are correct, others countries do allow it. I gotta watch that U.S.-centricness in this wonderfully multi-state thing called the Internet.

I couldn't find any text regarding the allowable copying of works for friends in those two links.

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Because it's not a right given by any law. It is however mostly unenforcable, so the legality of the action is pretty much a moot issue.

Edit: oops, I had forgotten about the Home Audio Recording Act.. means, if you don't sell it, you can't be found infringing when making digital copies. There have been no cases to date, of someone being prosecuted for having "illegal" copies of music. Only companies who make money through advertising/investments/subscriptiong are being sued.

if you don't sell it, you can't be found infringing when making digital copies.

More importantly: When using devices which make digital copies (CD recorders, digital audio tape, etc.), you are paying the record companies a royalty/tax through the sale of the device or the media. So they are actually happy when you make digital copies because they make money on the transaction.

The only thing is, now they're pissed because they can't tax the copies you transfer over a network. Only when you record these onto a taxed media do they make money.

As I've said before, Frank Zappa's statement and prepared statement to Congress in regard to the PMRC fiasco should be required reading for everyone. In it, he claims, not without reason, that the PMRC hearings were a smokescreen for the real issue, the private tax levied on consumers by the recording industry on blank recording media.

The fair use exemptions to the copyright law are pretty specific, and while the courts have weighed in a little to expand them (notably in the case of VCR "time-shifting")

I hope you aren't trying to say the courts have weighed in to expand the fair use provisions? If you take a look at the changes to copyright throughout the years i think you will find quite the opposite trend has been in place.

Unfortunately, the only thing a consumer with a PC and an empeg pays for is umm.. nothing. Since computers can make CD->mp3 recordings, but are excluded by the royalty section (1001), then the RIAA never gets a cent. The empeg is a player, and as has been found in court (the Diamond Rio case), isn't a recorder and is also excluded..

I also wonder about data vs music CDR disks.. are only the music ones taxed, because I don't think I've ever bought them.

Exactly, and that's what the RIAA is mainly upset about. Their primary concern is not for copyrights or artists, but whether or not they can charge their little tax and make their money off of the recording media.

> or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Well, the act protects people from getting sued for making copies for themselves. It doesn't say anything about distributing those copies to other people. If that interpretation was correct, then the non-commercial use of Napster would be legal as well.

> I hope you aren't trying to say the courts have weighed in to expand the fair use provisions? If you take a look at the changes to copyright throughout the years i think you will find quite the opposite trend has been in place.

It's been a mixed bag I think. I'll conceed that there is certainly enough court cases to support your position though.

If that interpretation was correct, then the non-commercial use of Napster would be legal as well.

No one got busted for the non-commercial use of Napster.

Napster itself, on the other hand, was a commercial organization and that's why it's no longer operating.

> I also wonder about data vs music CDR disks.. are only the music ones taxed, because I don't think I've ever bought them.

Yeah, only the music ones are taxed. And you only need them if you have a consumer audio device that records music CDs (there are a couple out there, I know Philips makes a couple). No computer burner would ever require one.

You know, I wouldn't mind increasing the price of data-CDR's by a few cents if it would just shut the RIAA up for another five years or so.

I'm waiting for the fallout of that one senator's investigation over copy-protection being illegal. If consumers pay a tax to reimburse the RIAA, then preventing copies is a violation of the Home recording act..

> No one got busted for the non-commercial use of Napster.

But it is still illegal. And people have gotten busted for having non-commerical ftp and web sites with music on them.

I think my original point still stands. Unless it is specifically allowed by the fair use exemptions, any copying of music, even between friends, is illegal I'm afraid. Whether it is ever enforced or not is a different question.

Hmm, or I could be wrong...

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti351.htm

Thanks, Ninti, that's a fun link. I especially like this quote, something I hadn't realized:

For years lawyers on both sides of copyright law have fought their battle over narrowly defined legal ground. (...) The earliest rulings gave book buyers and libraries the right to lend their books to others, overruling publishers' opposition.

Heh.. And at time, they proabaly had a BIAA (Bookbinder Industry Association of Artists) claiming they deserved a royalty whenever someone else looked at the book other than the original owner. Of corse, there are books nowadays that you can't show anyone else.. mostly college texbooks, and city building code laws..

EDIT- I would like to mention in regard of the poll discussion that 63.2% of all statistics are fictitious.
---------------------------------------

Say you buy a new Segway (you know, that 2-wheeled scooter- "Ginger"). Would it be against the law for you to build one for your use or your friend's use, if you figured out how? I don't think so.

What if you built it exactly the same with the same type parts? I still don't think so.

What if you got bored with it and sold it on ebay? It probably is, but I don't think it should be, and even if it is nobody would care.

What if you built several and started a business out of it? Yes, that would be illegal.

What if you built several and gave them away for free? I don't think it should be illegal. Patents are there to protect businesses. Say Microsoft invents some state of the art computer and patents it. Now say IBM figures out how to make it, too. IBM shouldn't be able to sell it; Microsoft beat them to it, but they should be able to use it for their own personal business use and use it in all of their DC's, stores, or whatever. The government can't/shouldn't stop you from learning and using "intellectual property". BUT, selling it is different. The government can't stop you from figuring out how to play a Red Hot Chili Pepper's song on your guitar. They can't stop you from playing it. They can't stop you from reproducing it in any way. They CAN stop you from selling it. Now keep in mind, patents/intellectual property isn't all that necessarry; it's only an incentive to promote development. Now if you haven't made the connection yet, all this can be related back to mp3's and piracy and etc.

Now, can you can you give it away for free, yet profit off of it indirectly, such as through advertising? Well think about this- All over the country, and I'm guessing all over the world, bands goto clubs/bars/whatnot and play unoriginal/copyrighted music (essentially giving it away for free) and profit off of it. I don't think that's wrong.

That's my analysis.

Would it be against the law for you to build one for your use or your friend's use, if you figured out how? I don't think so.

Now, it depends on the product, but in the case of the "Ginger", it would be illegal to manufacture and distribute a copy of the product. It's called a PATENT, and I'm sure the Ginger is so loaded with patents that you can't even talk about copying it without a team of lawyers descending upon you.

The thing is that Patents are different than copyrights. And copyrights are different than trademarks. It's probably a good idea for you to research the difference between these three things before discussing them.

But the same idea is behind all of them, right?

Well think about this- All over the country, and I'm guessing all over the world, bands goto clubs/bars/whatnot and play unoriginal/copyrighted music (essentially giving it away for free) and profit off of it. I don't think that's wrong.

And those of us who have actually worked in those kinds of bands will recall that there are stories of the RIAA trying to extort money from the bands and the bar owners. There were also stories of the RIAA trying to extort money from retail stores that played local radio stations over their PA systems. I don't know if these stories were true or not, they might have been urban legends.

But the same idea is behind all of them, right?

No, the same idea is not behind all of them. They are three completely different and separate things.

In fact a given product may have all three associated with it in different ways. The "ginger", to use your example, probably has all three associated with it, but each for a completely different reason.

Research the difference between Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, and get back to us.

Well yeah, and I've heard of people being robbed. Doesn't mean it's right or legal.

Research, my friend, research.

Alright, look. I know what a patent is. I know what copyright is. And I know what a trademark is. Yes they are different, but they are related. Why don't you try explaining how I misused them in my post?

If you really need convincing that the patent system is screwed up, just take a look at this

The patent (and copyright etc...) systems around the world are getting so over used and used incorectly that it makes me sick. Most of the 'government officials' that create some of the new copyright laws have no understanding of the technology that the laws are 'protecting'.

//matt

Copyrights and patents are totally different issues. Patents were created to give the inventor of a machine the right to control it's creation in commerce. So, the owner of the patents behind the Segway has the right to prevent companies from taking their product, figureing out how it works, and selling it for a cheaper price. This "right" is given to patent owners so they will invest their time and energy into making something new. No patents, not much research being done because it's not cost effective.

Copyrights on the other hand try to achieve the same goal for things that have no physical use. IE, they are meant only to be read/heard and interpreted in our minds. They also serve the same purpose of encouraging production of writing/art/musc/etc by creating an artificial right.

The issue that MP3's bring up, is that in the creation of those rights, the legislature has given normal people (Through the AHRA of 1992) exclusions so that the products they buy can be used by the owner. So that just because you bought an audio cd, you can still listen to it on your old magentic tapes, or whatever new technology comes out. This means that people have a right given by this law to convert CD's into MP3's, and that they can't be prosecuted for doing so.

The fundamental difference between patents and copyrights, is that patents don't prohibit you from making a copy of the thing covered by the patent, and giving one to a friend. Copyrights on the other hand, do. Sure I think it's stupid, but with the technology sector producing new products as it has in the past 10 years, I'm pretty sure that the war against MP3's was lost 5 years ago, they just haven't figured it out yet. I know I said that fair use lets you give copies to friends, but after looking into it, I was mistaken. Fair use is to allow for research/comment on copyrighted works, not for the use of those works. What I was thinking about was the mix-tape/bootleg issue that came up in the AHRA.. The thought then, was that copies of tapes degraded after each copy, so the spread of illegal copies would be self limited. They just now realized that MP3's are easy, exact copies and there's no stoping their acceptance by the public.

What I have a problem with, is that they are attempting to prohibit the spread of illegal copies of music by dissalowing technology that can be used for legal copies. So, the courts find themselves in the situation where they can only stop things that are blatently used only for illegal purposes (napster/etc), but can't exactly prohibit mp3 technology.

I'm a realist, I know that music sharing programs/websites are going to get killed as long as the RIAA thinks they can win. But I also know that annother will sprout up to fill the gap, so as a user, I have no worries. What I worry about is that the CD companies will start prohibit me from making MP3 copies of music that I own, and have a right to copy, simply because they don't want me to have the _chance_ of giving it away. To remove a right because it might be used for ill-purpose, is wrong. (So argues the NRA..)

Fabris, maybe it caused you confusion because I was trying to create an analogy between patented machines and copyrighted material.

There is a common idea behind trademarks, patents, and copyrights.. The protection of an individual/company of an idea/product/name so that they can make money off of their own work for a reasonable period of time without someone else taking that work and making money off of it.

"Protection" as an idea, yes. But they're very different forms of protection. To protect different things in different ways.

Tony was very gentle with his reply. Your message was full of holes. And intellectual property should be protected vigorously. If a company were to let another company copy their IP and distribute some like-product for FREE, then how could that first company survive? Stupid patents are granted all the time. That doesn't negate the need for the patent office.

BTW, I was successful at getting a number of auctions pulled from eBay. The ones selling MP3s are toast.

Bruno

If a company were to let another company copy their IP and distribute some like-product for FREE, then how could that first company survive?

You mean like how Microsoft destroyed Netscape by taking their technology and then distributing Internet Explorer free of charge? Yet they are allowed to do so...hmmm...

//matt

You mean how Netscape was based on all the work in Mosaic? You mean how Netscape was, is and always will be a pile of crap, so much so that a first generation browser could come on the scene and slap it silly?

MS licensed Mosaic from Spyglass as far as I recall. Netscape was the first popular commercial browser, but people were running NCSA's Mosaic (or ports) before that. Hey, Andreesen made plenty of money.

Bruno

There is one very important point about intellectual property law that I think some people are missing, or maybe have never heard (I hadn't until recently). The fundamental purpose of copyrights and patents is not to protect the holders of those copyrights and patents. That is the secondary purpose. The primary reason that intellectual property laws were created were to benefit the consumer. They achieve this goal is by protecting the intellectual property of inventors, thus giving inventors incentives(ie making money) to continue developing new products.

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the distinction - let's say that it was somehow possible to guarantee that no matter what, the same number of new inventions/music would be produced. In this highly improbable world, intellctual property laws could and should be thrown out because they would no longer do what they were created to do (that is, benifit the consumer). Why does this matter? Well, it helps to correctly frame discussions about intellectual property. What everyone (including law makers) should be asking themselves about each piece of IP law is NOT "is this law fair to patent/copyright holders", it should be "does this law, in the grand scheme, benefit the consumer."

One last comment -- having said all this, I realize that the power of corporations has probably been strong enough to shift the interpretation of IP law in the courts to the side of protecting inventors, even if this wasn't its original intent.

-Adam

I should have filed a patent on the principles of this thread. Protecting my rights to all derivative works while I was at it.

All you guys are still using my recently trademarked "eBay Losers" slogan in each message too. Though it is currently not a Reg'd trademark.

Maybe now would be a good time to test that thread moving command of the BBS?

Bruno

> I hope you aren't trying to say the courts have weighed in to expand the fair use provisions?

Here's another interesting site relevant to this. It's a history of copyright law in the U.S., with a listing of quite a few cases that helped shape it and were important. Mostly focusing on printed documents, but still interesting.

http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

I just looked through some of the ebay postings, and I realized that I wrote some of that product info! All I got out of it was a lousy tshirt. I wouldn't feel guilty posting it for an ebay auction if I decided to do one.

Fabris, maybe it caused you confusion because I was trying to create an analogy between patented machines and copyrighted material.

Yes, that is what caused me confusion. Because the patents protecting a machine are not germane to our discussions of what's legal and what's not in this particular thread (in my opinion). I thought you misunderstood the difference between a patent and a copyright. Instead, it was simply a bad analogy.

Yes, YES!!! I love the arguments! Whatever you do, keep posting. Don't stop just because the discussion is pointless, or doesn't belong here. Fill your mind with vengeance, fill your heart with hate, and fill your empeg with illegal mp3s!!!!!

The Prince of Darkness

Actually I believe there is a time limit on what is considered a fair use preview. I.E. A 30 sec clip that gives you the jist of the song is totally legal to distribute, but the whole song is not o.k. I've read the DMCA, buy to be honest, I fell asleep. It is all legal speak about something that the authors know nothing about.

There were also stories of the RIAA trying to extort money from retail stores that played local radio stations over their PA systems. I don't know if these stories were true or not, they might have been urban legends.

Not urban legend, and not RIAA.

ASCAP and BMI are the people you refer to here, and it is a little bit more complex than you state it.

It is perfectly legal for a store owner to play a radio in his store for the entertainment of his customers. It is not legal for him to play his radio into his intercom system and distribute the signal throughout the store. It is legal for him to place a radio next to each of his intercom speakers and play all of the radios at once, thus achieving exactly the same effect as if he had played one radio through his intercom system.

Please do not ask me to explain the logic behind this incomprehensible law -- I don't believe there is any. And please believe me when I tell you that the ASCAP and BMI music police are out there in force, intimidating retailers into compliance and starting legal actions against those who refuse.

tanstaafl.

My child, listen not to him. Strive to your temper your actions with good judgement and humility. Let love enter your heart and not hate others, for they are all your brothers. Obey my commandments and steal no more, and become a paragon of good manners and virtue.

Oh screw it, it is a lost cause.

The Lord

BTW, I was successful at getting a number of auctions pulled from eBay. The ones selling MP3s are toast.
>

I work with recording and sequencing software a lot, so whenever I find warez CDs for sale (with their quasi-legal suggestions of "software compilation"), I always get them yanked.

"Yes, YES!!! I love the arguments! Whatever you do, keep posting. Don't stop just because the discussion is pointless, or doesn't belong here. Fill your mind with vengeance, fill your heart with hate, and fill your empeg with illegal mp3s!!!!!
"

From one troll to another...

Satan is more sensible, however

true, they are related in that they are all components of intellectual property law. but, there are huge differences in the scope of protection they offer, and for whom.

one key difference that is pertinent to this discussion is that copyright law includes a concept of "fair use". now, that concept has been distorted and limited by other legislation, but it is there. no such provision exists for patent law. if you violate a patent, knowingly or not, for commercial gain or not, you are liable for damages.

--dan.

Here in Croatia whoever plays music publicly (e.g. in a bar, be it from CDs or radio) has to pay royalty. Failing to do so is misdemeanor and subject to fine. There are organizations (some are private companies) which collect that royalties, but I have no idea how do they distribute them.

A friend of mine, a misdemeanor judge, told me about a bar owner's successfull defence: he was playing only free stuff downloaded from mp3.com.


A word about patents: you don't have to 'figure out' how to duplicate a patented technology. One of key ideas behing patents is that the holder has to disclose protected technology sufficiently to enable an average practitioner in the field to duplicate it.

Speaking of free Croatian mp3s, a friend of mine in Croatia is involved with http://www.blacksoulmusic.com. Nice house-y stuff

Argh, they are pet project of my favourite radio station, but that doesn't make them *my* favourite music

Edit: Sorry, missread the URL. The comment refered to Blackout Project, not Blacksoul Music

My child, listen not to him.

Why do you always have to butt in on everything I do? I'm just trying to have a little fun, and here you come with your 'commandments' crap again! Man, such a pain in my ass. Everyone knows that it is way more fun to be on the Dark Lord's side. I mean, just look at this. Now doesn't that look like a good time?

Beelzebub

OhMiGoodness! I never knew the COS (no, not the Church of Scientology :> ) was "In association with Amazon.com"...

Bahaaahahahahahahahaa.

I do have this to say about LaVey, he could play a mean pipe-organ.

Yeah, but that 'Prince of Darkness' - don't you missuse a deserved alias proudly used by Lucas, manucacturer of electric equipment used in British cars?

Yeah, but that 'Prince of Darkness' - don't you missuse a deserved alias proudly used by Lucas, manucacturer of electric equipment used in British cars?

Hey I copyrighted that 'Prince of Darkness' thing well over two millennia ago! So don't get me started on how many times I've had to 'enforce' my own copy protection. Besides, who's gonna stop me?

His Infernal Majesty

Man, gotta love that logo. Looks like a 50's scifi film. ``No one will be admitted during the terrifying black mass scene!''

ROFL, good one, Bitt.

How dare you use My Name for your own amusement!! I know who you are, and I will not let you get away with it! Careful or you will spend an eternity in Damnation!!!

I'm watching you.

By the way, you owe me a royalty check for that 'His Infernal Majesty' usage.

The Lord of the Flies

Is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

I'm watching you

Sorry man, don't get your little red panties all in a wad. I promise it wont happen again. I was just having a little fun, sheesh!

//matt

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

So what about other laws describing copyright infringement?

Calvin

Uh oh, now you've got me. I don't know what that phrase means in English.

``Title'' refers to the section of the US Code within which it's contained. Copyright is contained in Title 17.

Right, it's a clause of limitation that says you can't be prosecuted for the infraction under *this* title. That's kind of sneaky legalese that implies a loophole somewhere else that they can use to fry you.

Calvin "am i paranoid?"

"it was simply a bad analogy." - tfabris

Any particular reason?


Hybrid,

Would you be kind enough to point those holes out for me? Preciate it.


See, the name 'piracy' makes it sound like you're stealing something, when in actuality, you bought and paid for it and the music companies just want to control how you use it. It's none of their business what you do with it or how you use it or if you reproduce it. While they're selling the music contained on that cd, they're also selling you the knowledge it took to create that music. I'll give it to them that you shouldn't be able to sell that reproduced music (which is still arguable), but when they start controlling everything else you can do with it, they cross the line. What's next, no reproducing the music on instruments? No reproducing the music via vocal cords? That'll be the day- when a cop pulls you over for singing along to the radio.

Since copyright law is contained in title 17, there are no other titles that prohibit you from copying someone elses work. If you stole the CD from the artist, then they could sue, but that's it..

NWMT.

Bruno

Not Wearing Man-Thong?

Neato Watch, Man, Totally!?

No Weirdos May Touch?

Now Waxing My Tooshie?

Never Wear Maladjusted Tubetops?

Nasty Warts, More Ticks?

Well what is it?

Well which one is it?

NorthWesternMost Territories, he's from Canada...

Actually I think it was "not worth my time."

I am having trouble understanding this concept - I know of nobody..yes NOBODY.. who downloads mp3's for any reason other than to get a quick sample of a new artist/album as a preview before buying. I do this occasionally when someone recommends an album I don't know; I have a quick listen and if more than half the songs are good I get the album from a shop (or amazon.) If one is good, I try and find it on single. After that I ditch the mp3 file and rip my own from CD, single, LP or sometimes tape.
That's what my friends and colleagues do. I thought it was pretty standard.

Am I just being too middle class about this??

See, the name 'piracy' makes it sound like you're stealing something, when in actuality, you bought and paid for it

Agreed. Moreover, the terms "piracy" and "copyright theft" make it sound like the original owner doesn't possess it any more. That's the reason why real theft is immoral, of course: not because the theif gains the item, but because the owner loses it. Such loss is simply not present in copyright violation cases; whether or not copyright violation is immoral, it can't sensibly be described as "theft".

Peter

Correct, though it can be percieved as a potential theft. The only other way to get the said item is to buy a license from the owner. If you copy someone else's licensed version, then you're bypassing that requirement. So in effect, but not in action, you are taking something that you don't own.

If someone sells a patented/copyrighted product without an agreement with the patent/copyright holder, the patent holder is "losing" market share. I would call this a form of theft.

Ok well say you don't reproduce the song. You cut out 2 seconds of it. You could argue that that's an entirely different song. The point is that they can't own knowledge or control what you can do with that knowledge. Once I see how 'ginger' works, I have my own knowledge of it. They can't take that away. Sure it's reasonable to regulate the selling of the patented or copyrighted product, but to regulate how you use it is just wrong. Like I said, if they can say that reproducing a song on you computer is illegal, then they could say singing it or playing the song on an instrument is illegal, too. They are all just reproductions of the song.

You cut out 2 seconds of it. You could argue that that's an entirely different song.

You could, but the court would still say no. Part of the copyright law states that even copying a portion of a work still constitutes copyright infringement.

... they could say singing it or playing the song on an instrument is illegal...

Not really. Reproducing the work in a new form (singing isn't exact reproduction, unless you're really damn good) can fall under Fair Use as it affects how much origial content is taken.

Copyright law is a gray area, and is always subject to the exact circumstances of the case. It's not just the action, but the motivation, and the extent of the copying that determines if it's really illegal.

They can't take that away. Sure it's reasonable to regulate the selling of the patented or copyrighted product, but to regulate how you use it is just wrong.

No law out there that I know of, makes it illegal to use a patented/copyrighted item you bought for your own use however you want to. It only covers what you do with that work when you give/sell it to someone else. If you make your own segway, they can't sue you.

Another aspect is non-copyright mp3s, ones freely available to download and share from various websites. Many of my mp3's are these, Also many are my own recordings from the radio, from my vinyl collection, and even from old cassettes! Mp3 is not so much a pirating medium, but a superb archiving/ storage format that is incredibly convenient. Many of the mp3s on my machine are tracks that i composed myself.

Give/Sell or Show to someone else. So if you purchased Braveheart, and then invite a hundred people over to watch it for free...... you never gave or sold it...... but it would raise issues.

Calvin

Such loss is simply not present in copyright violation cases; whether or not copyright violation is immoral, it can't sensibly be described as "theft".

If you are utilizing and enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor and creativity without compensating him for it, you have stolen it.

tanstaafl.

Damn, you should really stop ASSuming. The fact is that you CAN own "knowledge" - you can own information. You can own an IDEA or a CONCEPT. A design, a method, an algorithm, a process. That's the whole idea behind INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

Your arguments are meaningless. They're not arguments at all becaue you propose no information based on fact. Not even on educated hypothesis. The only fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. And you try and bend rules and laws that exist today, around the world, simply because you don't understand them.

"This law is meaningless because X and Y are meaningless." The problem is that "X" and "Y" are meaningless only to YOU.

Remember the other very important catch-all. Ignorance is NOT a defence. Remember that one when you're in front of a judge. Which I suspect you will be at some point.

Bruno

You can own knowledge. But you can't always own it exclusively. Once I have the knowledge, I own it, too. Let me see you take it from me.

Here's the difference I see between you and me. You keep refering back to what the law says while I keep refering back to what I think is right and wrong. And I don't see anything wrong with copying another person's idea.

So far I haven't seen any responses to my posts from you that actually contained any substance. You've just made vague statements like "your arguments are meaningless" along with various insults. You see, you're trying to have a win or lose argument here instead of just discussing the topic at hand. But if you feel that you need to try to put someone down, I feel sorry for you. I really do. Let me give you some advice, don't take debates like these, which really don't mean a thing in the long run, so personally. It only hurts you, trust me. So take a tip from my pirated Eagles collection and take it easy.

One day you just may do something with your life, like create a song or invent something, and the first time someone steals your idea you will suddenly understand and become a convert to the joys of intellectual property.

He was correct though, as we are talking about the legality of copying mp3's. If you don't take into consideration the laws that are on the books, and not philosophical ideas, then it's kinda hard to decide if it's illegal or not. Morality doesn't dictate legality an vice-versa. I think everyone has pointed out specific examples of why copying other people's mp3's are illegal, yet you continue to refer "back to what [you] think is right and wrong".

This is very true. It's "sharing" when it's someone else's stuff. When it's YOUR stuff, it's suddenly called "theft".

If you are utilizing and enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor and creativity without compensating him for it, you have stolen it.

Even assuming a "without his permission" in that sentence, I still don't believe it counts as stealing. I still maintain that the reason that stealing a physical object is wrong, is that the original owner is deprived of it. The activity you describe deprives the original creator of nothing, and so isn't really stealing. It's often illegal, and it's arguably immoral, but saying that it's illegal or immoral because it's stealing is misleading.

You have to ask why people are so keen to describe this unrelated crime as "stealing" or "piracy". Usually it's because it's obvious, because of the deprivation consideration, that stealing and piracy are immoral and should be illegal. Labelling copyright or patent violations as "stealing" is often an attempt to avoid evaluating those activities as themselves for immorality or illegality.

Peter

I have to agree with peter. Taking something that the person doesn't lose is hardly stealing, it's more like anti-competative acts by the consumer. By giving out free copies of something you bought, you are competing with the original seller without any loss on your part. Copyright Infringement has nothing to do with theft (press calls it theft) and everything to do with bypassing the owners ability to sell their material.

Again, what's the difference between reprorducing the song on your computer and reproducing the song on instruments? One is just more exact than the other.

You can't simply arrest someone because their actions are hurting business for another person. Should Burger King have the right to arrest you if you decide to cook your own Whoppers? The bottom line is supply and demand. You can't take away things from the consumer because you think the the new Destiny's Child cd should be going platinum. People figured out how to make mp3's. The secret's out. The music industry should just have to take the hit.

----------------------------------------
"If you don't take into consideration the laws that are on the books, and not philosophical ideas, then it's kinda hard to decide if it's illegal or not. Morality doesn't dictate legality an vice-versa. I think everyone has pointed out specific examples of why copying other people's mp3's are illegal, yet you continue to refer "back to what [you] think is right and wrong". " - Yang

I'm not trying to argue whether or not it is illegal, but whether or not it should be.

I hate to do this...

Should Burger King have the right to arrest you if you decide to cook your own Whoppers?

Answer: No.. Now go copy your own music..

I figured someone might say that, so here's my reply.....

What if you made exact copies of the whopper? And then you opened up a building next to Burger King and gave them away for free? And yes, I know burgers aren't copyrighted (and for good reason), but you can see the direct correlation.

Further more, copying Burger King's burger would be just like copying a band's song on an mp3 except that a machine copies mp3's the for you. So what if a machine was created that could make exact copies of burgers? You paid for the machine, you own the machine, therefore the copies it produces are yours.

That analogy doesn't work for several reasons.. Besides Woppers not being copyrighted (the name is trademarked though..), it requires you to produce the item. Copying MP3's is something that doesn't take any skill at all to perform if you have a program do it. I don't know of anyone copying music by listening to it and reproducing the bits by hand, so I would be pretty safe in assuming that everyone uses a program.. Also, when copying music, you have an almost exact (to most it's perfect) copy of the original, and until we get replicators like in star trek, your woppers won't be exact..

Additionally, it costs you money to produce the woppers, and thus giving them out for free would make it a rather unprofitable action. While profit isn't required for there to be a violation, it's hard to say you're "stealing" their market when you are pouring money in and not getting anything back.. (MSIE doesn't count.. that's anti-competitive actions by a business)

I think we're getting off on a tangent that isn't necessary.. Copyright gives the author of a work which can be represented in a physical medium (paper, digital, whatever) the right to determine who can have copies of that work. Thus, your Xerox Burger-Copier would produce illegal copies of the burger because the artistic representation (food art anyone?) would be copied. If you copied a picture Burger King took of a wopper and sold it, you would be in violation.. Copying blueprints is a violation.. City of New York might get sued because they took the design of the 4 firefighters around the flag and changed it to be 4 different raced people. This is a violation because they own the ideas represented in the picture (not the picture as it was used for press purposes).. So here you have an example of art being a violation..

ok, I know that we are getting a bit off topic, but I did a quick search on Burger King patents and came up with a small list

I'm sure that there is something in there that says you can't xerox(tm) their burgers. Plus I think we have forgotten about trade secrets and all that (you know, how they make that yummy 'special sauce')

ok, I'll try and get back on topic now...

//matt

recipes aren't patentable, only designs of machines/software. source code is copyrighted, as well as their recipes as they wrote them down. But if I wrote down:

Burger:
1 bun
1 meat(?) patty
1 slice of onion
2 pickles
etc..

I wouldn't be violating their copyright on their recipe.. the 11 herbs and spices in the KFC chicken isn't copyrighted.. that's why it's secret.. so noone can use them.. revealing trade secrets by an employee would be a contract violation..

Perhaps his intent is the fruits of labor with intellectual property is the montary one that you get from it at a later point. If you go and distribute the property away for free then you deprive the maker of that.

Calvin

A thought to ponder. The word 'copyright" means "right to copy" and that is given by the owner of the copy right. All those that argue that copying something without permission should be legal is arguing against the concept of copy rights.

Calvin

It depends on the person. Do you think the guy who invented emacs is screaming and ranting about why he should be paid for every copy made? :-)

Calvin

Obviously, there is no physical law in the universe that ensures these things work. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc, are human intellectual devices designed to further society at large. Obviously you are an individualist, and as an individualist you are looking out for one person, and that is yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but it might be viewed as selfishness. If you never have to consider what *other* people think is right or wrong, or what we, collectively as a society think is right or wrong, with only yourself to answer to, I can only conclude that you need to increase your knowledge of ethics. What you call a debate is not a debate. You need to listen in order to debate; if you open your debate by closing your ears to the opposing side, then you'll find no one listening to you.

Anyway, back to your topic at hand. There are societies where intellectual property is considered to be common. Meaning, there are no concepts of copyrights and patents the way we, as an American society conceives of. When one person creates something, it is considered to be owned by all. This is practiced in some if not all of the communist countries. If I read your opinions right, you might as well move to Communist China where music and software and invention may be copied by anyone and you can buy DVDs for a penny. You have to wonder why societies like that do not produce unique culturally affective material on the scale of the United States? Is it because we reward the creators of intellectual property greatly and they do not? Maybe. Plane tickets are pretty cheap right now to China by the way.

Calvin

The activity you describe deprives the original creator of nothing,

Nothing? Well, nothing except the remuneration he was entitled to receive in return for your being allowed to use his intellectual property.

I think that counts for something...

tanstaafl.

Nothing? Well, nothing except the remuneration he was entitled to receive in return for your being allowed to use his intellectual property.

I think that counts for something...

What I meant is, you deprive him of nothing which he already owns. No doubt he expects to be richer after enforcing his copyright and/or patent. But a cutpurse expects to be richer after lifting your wallet: the entire issue here is whether current copyright and patent legislation creates expectations in the copyright or patent holder which it is moral for him to act upon.

Peter

P.S. "Intellectual property" is another expression, like "piracy", which seeks to prejudge the entire point we're debating here, by (IMO artificially) treating intangibles as if they were (physical) property. It is misleading to use that expression.

Though this whole issue has gotten off topic, I really have to comment.

I have two jobs in life: a programmer and a musician. Both of these jobs require that I create something intellectually and I am glad the people in my country have agreed that this work is worth protecting. The company I work for is small, but we have a great product that is protected by a patent, and this means we have a chance to compete in the marketplace. We have spent two years (and loger before I got there) and millions of dollers developing a revolutionary product, and it would stink if any of our clients could freely decide not to buy our product from us but use our research and development to build their own (which would certainly be economicly viable in some of our really big systems).

As a musician, at this point I would (and will with the album I am currently working on) freely distribute and let people copy my music, but that is my choise becase I am financing the project and I am not really doing it for profit. Record companies do have a say in who should be able to listen to music because they are responisible for it being made (though their response to mp3's has been ignorant and sad - I do agree they are loosing this battle and I am totally steamed that I can't rip a CD my wife bought me for Christmas).

As far as bands playing songs in bars, I am pretty sure it is illegal to play copywrited material if you make people pay to see your band. I lead the music at my church and we have to report all the music that we do (for free to the church goer, mind you) so the authors of the music get paid. My church is perfectly happy to do whatever we need to so that great music keeps getting written.

I do think that using music you didn't pay for (that isn't free of course) is stealing, and that is an appropriate word for it.

No, but even he (RMS) used copyright laws to ensure his work is used as he intended it. FSF GPL is firmly based on copyright laws.

Ok, point taken.

Calvin

IT's not secret, and it's not 11 herbs and spices.

Here it is in all it's glory.......

Salt, Pepper, MSG.

What, expecting something more complex?